1993 (11) TMI 63 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice dated 30-8-1993 issued by the first respondent.
2. Validity of Trade Notice 12/1993 dated 5-2-1993 issued by the third respondent.
3. Interpretation of Rule 57F(2) and Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules.
4. Applicability of Trade Notice in determining the removal of waste and scrap.
5. Quasi-Judicial Authority's discretion in deciding cases based on Trade Notices.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash a show cause notice dated 30-8-1993 issued by the first respondent, demanding duty for the removal of 'ash' and 'dross' during a specific period. The petitioner argued that the removal was under Rule 57F(2) for refining and reconditioning goods without duty payment. However, the respondents contended that Rule 57F(4) applied to waste and scrap removal. The Court held that the petitioner must explain why Rule 57F(2) applies and not Rule 57F(4), dismissing the petition at the show cause notice stage.

2. The Trade Notice 12/1993 issued by the third respondent was challenged by the petitioner, claiming it influenced the show cause notice. The Trade Notice clarified that Rule 57F(2) covers removal of inputs during manufacturing, not waste or scrap. The Court emphasized that Trade Notices are general and authorities must examine cases individually. The Trade Notice did not bind the first respondent, who had discretion to decide based on merits. The Court declined to entertain the writ petitions solely based on the Trade Notice.

3. The petitioner relied on a judgment regarding notional interest in assessable value, which was distinguished by the Court. The judgment highlighted the Quasi-Judicial Authority's role in factual assessments and the impact of circulars or trade notices on their powers. The Court concluded that the previous judgment did not apply to the present case's facts.

4. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petitions at the show cause notice stage, allowing the petitioner to submit explanations and proceed according to the law. The judgment emphasized the Quasi-Judicial Authority's role in determining the applicability of rules and notices in individual cases, maintaining discretion in decision-making processes.